Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow • Hacker News Board

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#661

Post by raldi » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:31 PM UTC

Labienus wrote: post #499

It's unlikely to change development significantly. California NIMBYs still have enormous autonomy through CEQA. It enables any individual to contest developments for years, obligating developers enormous sums of money and time to study "environmental impacts". Last winter, the law was expanded through a ruling in Berkeley. If a development adds a sizable number of people, it can be seen as an environmental impact and…

Perhaps not coincidentally, Berkeley's housing element was just rejected today (the deadline by which they needed it certified in order to avoid the Builder's Remedy). The provisions in this piece will kick in there tomorrow.

As for CEQA, here's what a local law firm has to say: "In particular, the intersection between Builder's Remedy and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) remains untested. Jurisdictions may try to use CEQA to regain discretionary authority over Builder's Remedy projects. Whether that tactic will prove effective remains to be seen, given that CEQA may not be used to do that which other statutes prohibit. Pub. Res. Code, § 21004; CEQA Guidelines § 15040(e)."

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/build...

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#662

Post by kylehotchkiss » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

wakannai wrote: post #567

Because California with its infinite water supply can definitely support an infinite increase in population, right? Higher density areas don't solve a single problem. They make areas less desirable. They displace wildlife (less green areas, because WE NEED MORE HOUSING). Pandemics love density. Higher density means more people, more local spending power, more local businesses, more demand for workers that translates…

If the new construction is near the coast, more desalination plants is a solution. Most California water usage is agricultural anyways.

Regarding wildfires, what we really need are more goats. Armies and armies of goats. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/goats-may...

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#663

Post by jedberg » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

telotortium wrote: post #572

jedberg wrote: post #127

There is a developer in Cupertino who has been fighting with the city for years, who got awfully quiet lately. Now I know why. I suspect they have a plan for an absolutely massive high rise behind my house that they will be submitting at 8am tomorrow morning. My neighbors are going to be pissed .

By "high-rise", you must mean 5-over-1, right? I doubt anyone's going to build an actual high rise in the suburbs.

The original plan from the developer included multiple 8 story towers. But the property is right off of a major freeway and just a few minutes from 20+ story towers in San Jose, so I see no reason to hold back.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#664

Post by neilparikh » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

api wrote: post #583

nlavezzo wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answers are very uncomfortable. Are they? Isn't it possible that people who live in beautiful neighborhoods with mature trees, nice big yards, and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around, want to keep them that way for primarily those reasons? Of course their desires alone shouldn't be the final word on proposed changes to codes, but implying that all of these homeowners are primarily driven b…

> that are safe for kids It’s all about kids. Without kids in the picture sure, go ahead, make cities look like Coruscant from Star Wars. The instant you have kids you see how important open spaces safe enough for unstructured minimally supervised play are. Without spaces like this all you have are kids drooling on Roblox and YouTube all day. There’s nothing for kids in an urban core. Those spaces don’t have to be un…

Japan is much more child friendly in terms of that. For example, young children are regularly sent to do errands on their own (see the Old Enough tv show for an exaggerated version of that). So people may believe it to be the case, but I'm not convinced our zoning style achieves that goal.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#665

Post by RHSeeger » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #594

ipaddr wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answers are very uncomfortable Like cleaner air, safer streets, less traffic and a better place to raise a child and/or dog with backyards and privacy.

Streets are dangerous because of cars zipping around. Cars contribute to air pollution quality (until electrified) and noise quality. So, you ban cars from streets and allow only pedestrians and cyclists. Next, you allow local amenities to pop up so you don't feel the need to get a car out. The suburban pattern of development as it currently exists isn't the only way to facilitate the quality of life you're looking f…

You can't ban cars before you have the infrastructure and commercial resources to replace what cars were used for.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#666

Post by ROTMetro » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #526

thegrimmest wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? if a low density community wants to plan to remain low density, who are the rest of us to stop them?

What is the legal standing of a "community" in American or state law? Looking at this abstractly, buying a plot of land grants you ownership over that plot, nothing more. So on what basis should an owner of one plot be able to dictate what others can do with their own plot? Scaling up to a community, what % of plot owners need to share an opinion for that opinion to outweigh the property rights of disagreeing plot ow…

Housing is most people's largest purchase in life. Zoning is put in place to make sure that that purchase is suitable for the purpose intended so people feel comfortable making that large investment. They tried to get a variance to my local zoning to put in an asphalt plant, that would spew crap into the air my kids breath. That makes my house unsuitable to the use I purchased it for, and that the county promised it would be for via zoning, as my entire purpose was to raise kids in a healthy environment.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#667

Post by bandofthehawk » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

jp57 wrote: post #531

hibikir wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has little to do with the existence of zoning laws themselves, but the specific zones that they define. Japan has zones, so does Spain. But there's just nothing anywhere near as Restrictive as most US cities' R1 zone. Many places have R2s and R3s that are still more restrictive than the least dense thing than a Spanish city has. Remove zones alone, and HOAs will get areas into legally binding covenants that are…

> Remove zones alone, and HOAs will get areas into legally binding covenants that are also just as tough as their current zoning regulation. This. Houston has little or no zoning and is terribly sprawling and car-centric. Despite the lack of zoning, in most neighborhoods you can't just build whatever you want because of restrictive covenants. Developers build massive car-focused single-family-only developments and lo…

You're right Houston doesn't call it zoning, but they basically have the same rules. This video sums it up well: https://youtu.be/TaU1UH_3B5k

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#668

Post by xp84 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

GenerocUsername wrote: post #626

vineyardmike wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't it possible that people who live in beautiful neighborhoods with mature trees, nice big yards, and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around, want to keep them that way for primarily those reasons? Yes that is absolutely something people want. You can get that in cities if you give up on yard and instead share with parks. That said, some of the reasons people want it are uncomfortable. Some pe…

Parks cannot replace yards as long as the homeless camps exist across every existing park in my city.

This is very true. Sadly there is zero chance of finding a politically-palatable solution for this one in California.

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#669

Post by davidf18 » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

bad_good_guy wrote: post #488

cal5k wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median sale price in Houston is currently $310,500, vs $441,250 in Sacramento, $917,500 in LA and $1.3MM in SF. Aesthetic judgments aside, seems like a winning strategy for housing affordability?

California has a population density of 249.1 people per sq mile compared to 103.2 people per sq mile in Texas. Seems an obviously more important factor here.

[dead]

Re: Builder's Remedy goes into effect in many California cities tomorrow

#670

Post by Swizec » Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

spockz wrote: post #610

SamBam wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and low traffic streets that are safe for kids to play around Actually, suburban streets are significantly more dangerous than urban streets, in terms of number of children killed, as a fraction of both population and miles driven. > Motor vehicle traffic was the leading mechanism of unintentional injury death among children aged 5–13, with the rural rate (3.1) twice as high as the urban rate (1.5) > Motor vehicle…

But why is that? Maybe because children don’t play on the street at all in the city. So what does the fraction look when we take children playing outside and be healthy instead of just children? The chance remains the same but for the ones that survive there is a better quality of life.

Higher speeds. Suburban streets/roads/stroads optimize for traffic safety, not pedestrian safety.

The wide roads and large front yards promote higher driving speeds. For a long time the thinking was even that front yards can work as a place for cars to stop safely if they fly off the road.

They talk about this in Strong Towns iirc